Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections in Canada - 2020 Update - NWMO-TR-2020-06 October 2020
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections in Canada – 2020 Update NWMO-TR-2020-06 October 2020 M. Gobien and M. Ion Nuclear Waste Management Organization
i Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 St. Clair Avenue East, 6th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Canada Tel: 416-934-9814 Web: www.nwmo.ca
i
Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections in Canada – 2020 Update
NWMO-TR-2020-06
October 2020
M. Gobien and M. Ion
Nuclear Waste Management Organization
All copyright and intellectual property rights belong to NWMO.
ii
Document History
Title: Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections in Canada – 2020 Update
Report Number: NWMO-TR-2020-06
Revision: R000 Date: October 2020
Nuclear Waste Management Organization
Authored by: M. Gobien and M. Ion
Verified by: K. Liberda
Reviewed by: P. Gierszewski
Approved by: D. Wilson
iii
ABSTRACT
Title: Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections in Canada – 2020 Update
Report No.: NWMO-TR-2020-06
Author(s): M. Gobien and M. Ion
Company: Nuclear Waste Management Organization
Date: October 2020
Abstract
This report summarizes the existing inventory of used nuclear fuel wastes in Canada as of
June 30, 2020 and forecasts the potential future nuclear fuel waste from the existing reactor
fleet as well as from proposed new-build reactors. While the report focuses on power reactors,
it also includes prototype, demonstration and research reactor fuel wastes held by AECL, which
are included in the NWMO mandate.
As of June 30, 2020, a total of approximately 3.0 million used CANDU fuel bundles (about
58,200 tonnes of heavy metal (t-HM)) were in storage at the reactor sites, an increase of about
90,250 bundles since the 2019 NWMO Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections report.
For the existing reactor fleet, the total projected number of used fuel bundles produced to end
of life of the reactors is approximately 5.5 million used CANDU fuel bundles (approximately
106,500 t-HM). The projection is based on the published plans to refurbish and life extension for
all Darlington and Bruce reactors, as well as continued operation of Pickering A until 2024 and
Pickering B until 2025.
Used fuel produced by potential new-build reactors will depend on the size and type of reactor
and number of units deployed. New-build plans are at various stages of development and the
decisions about whether to proceed with individual projects, reactor technology and number of
units have not yet been made.
The impacts of any future decisions on reactor refurbishment, new nuclear build or advanced
fuel cycle technologies made by the nuclear utilities in Canada on projected inventory of nuclear
fuel waste will be incorporated into future updates of this report.
iv
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT…. ............................................................................................................................. iii
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 CHANGES SINCE THE 2019 REPORT ............................................................... 1
2. INVENTORY FROM EXISTING REACTORS ....................................................... 3
2.1 CURRENT INVENTORIES.................................................................................... 3
2.2 PROJECTED NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE.............................................................. 4
3. INVENTORY FROM POTENTIAL NEW REACTORS .......................................... 8
3.1 PROJECTS WHICH HAVE RECEIVED OR CURRENTLY UNDERGOING
REGULATORY APPROVALS .............................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Ontario Power Generation ..................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Global First Power ................................................................................................. 9
3.2 POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENTS .............................................. 9
4. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED USED FUEL INVENTORY.................................. 10
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF EXISTING CANADIAN REACTORS & FUEL STORAGE ....... 16
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF FUEL TYPES ...................................................................... 22
B.1 FUELS FROM OPERATING REACTORS ..................................................................... 23
B.2 FUELS FROM DEMONSTRATION AND PROTOTYPE REACTORS .......................... 27
APPENDIX C: POTENTIAL NEW BUILD FUEL CHARACTERISTICS AND QUANTITIES ..... 30
C.1 FUELS FROM POTENTIAL NEW-BUILD REACTORS ................................................ 33vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Summary of Nuclear Fuel Waste in Canada as of June 30, 2020 .................................. 3
Table 2: Summary of Projected Nuclear Fuel Waste from Existing Reactors ............................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Summary of Used Fuel Wet and Dry Storage History ................................................... 4
Figure 2: Summary of Projected Used Fuel Inventory ................................................................ 111
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible for the long-term
management of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste (Canada 2002).
The NWMO will continually review and adjust its implementation plans as appropriate consistent
with the external environment. As part of this process, the NWMO annually publishes the
current and future potential inventories of used fuel amounts and types (Gobien and Ion 2019).
This document provides an update as of June 2020.
Decisions on new nuclear reactors, advanced fuel cycles or other changes in energy choices
will not be made by the NWMO. They will be made by the utilities in conjunction with
government and regulators. However, it is important that NWMO is prepared for these potential
changes so that the NWMO can plan for the long-term management of used fuel arising from
such decisions. As part of this, the NWMO maintains a watching brief on alternative
technologies (NWMO 2019).
1.2 SCOPE
This report summarizes the existing inventory of used nuclear fuel wastes in Canada as of
June 30, 2020 and forecasts the potential future nuclear fuel waste from the existing reactor
fleet as well as from proposed new reactors. The report focuses on power reactors, but also
includes information on prototype, demonstration and research reactor fuel wastes held by
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
1.3 CHANGES SINCE THE 2019 REPORT
The primary changes to the Canadian nuclear landscape since the 2019 report are:
a) An increase in the total amount of used fuel currently in storage, due to another year of
reactor operation.
b) The plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering A Units 1 and 4 to 2024 and
Pickering B Units 5 to 8 to 2025 (Ontario 2020).
c) Darlington Unit 2 returned to service in June 2020 (OPG 2020a). Darlington Unit 3 was
shut down in July 2020, and its refurbishment started in September 2020, with a slight
delay due in response to COVID-19 (OPG 2020b).
d) Bruce Power initiated the major component replacement at Unit 6 in January 2020.
(Bruce Power 2020a). In August 2020, Bruce Power and Cameco launched the Centre
for Next Generation Nuclear Technologies and support innovation and isotope
production (Bruce Power 2020b).2
The combined effects of these changes on the current and projected used fuel inventory are:
a) An increase in the total amount of used fuel currently in storage from June 30, 2019 to
June 30, 2020.
June 30, 2019 June 30, 2020 Net change
Wet storage 1,448,284 1,444,092 -4,192 bundles*
Dry storage 1,486,638 1,581,081 94,443 bundles
TOTAL 2,934,922 3,025,173 90,251 bundles
* Note: A negative number means more used fuel was transferred from wet to dry storage than
was produced during the year.
b) A small increase in the overall projected future total number of used fuel bundles
produced by the existing reactors to align with the current refurbishment and operational
plans (see Section 2.2). The forecast presented in this report is most similar to the high
scenarios from the previous versions of this report.3
2. INVENTORY FROM EXISTING REACTORS
2.1 CURRENT INVENTORIES
Table 1 summarizes the current inventory of nuclear fuel waste in Canada as of June 30, 2020.
The inventory is expressed in terms of number of CANDU used fuel bundles and does not
include fuel which is currently in the reactors (which is not considered to be “nuclear fuel waste”
until it has been discharged from the reactors) or non-CANDU-like research fuels.
As of June 30, 2020 there are approximately 3.0 million bundles in wet or dry storage. This is
equivalent to approximately 58,200 tonnes of heavy metal (t-HM). Further details on the existing
reactors can be found in Appendix A and fuel types in Appendix B.
Table 1: Summary of Nuclear Fuel Waste in Canada as of June 30, 2020
Location Waste Wet Storage Dry Storage TOTAL Current Status
Owner (# bundles) (# bundles) (# bundles)
Bruce A OPG(1) 343,579 227,712 571,291 - 4 units operational
(1) - 3 units operational, 1 unit undergoing
Bruce B OPG 349,396 406,646 756,042
refurbishment. See Note (2).
- 3 units operational, 1 unit undergoing
Darlington OPG 313,853 271,015 584,868
refurbishment. See Note (2).
Douglas
AECL 0 22,256 22,256 - permanently shut down 1984
Point
Gentilly 1 AECL 0 3,213 3,213 - permanently shut down 1977
Gentilly 2 HQ 3,865 126,060 129,925 - permanently shut down 2012
- 2 units operational, 2 units non-
Pickering A OPG operational since 1997 (permanently
396,935 395,494 792,429
shut down 2005)
Pickering B OPG - 4 units operational
Point
NBPN 36,464 121,498 157,962 - operational
Lepreau
- permanently shut down 1985. See
Whiteshell AECL 0 2,301 2,301
Note (3).
- mostly fuel from NPD (permanently
shut down 1987) with small amounts
0 4,886 4,886
Chalk River AECL from other Canadian reactors and
research activities
Note (4) Note (4) Note (4) - currently under assessment
Total 1,444,092 1,581,081 3,025,173
Notes:
AECL = Atomic Energy of Canada Limited HQ = Hydro-Québec
NBPN = New Brunswick Power Nuclear OPG = Ontario Power Generation Inc.
1) OPG is responsible for the used fuel that is produced. Bruce reactors are leased to Bruce Power for operation.
2) Bruce B and Darlington are currently undergoing refurbishment, unit-by-unit. The Bruce B first unit (Unit 6) was shut
down in Jan 2020 and refurbishment is expected to be complete in Dec 2023. The Darlington first unit (Unit 2)
refurbishment was completed in Jun 2020, and the refurbishment of its second unit (Unit 3) started in Sep 2020.
3) 360 bundles of Whiteshell fuel are standard CANDU bundles (from the Douglas Point reactor). The remaining bundles
are various research, prototype and test fuel bundles, similar in size and shape to standard CANDU bundles, mainly
from the research/prototype WR-1 reactor.
4) AECL also owns some components of research and development fuels such as fuel elements, fuel pellets and
fuel debris in storage at Chalk River. While the total mass of these components is small compared to the overall
quantity of CANDU fuel, their varied composition, storage form, dimensions, etc. requires special consideration
for future handling. There are also small quantities (a few kg) of non-CANDU research reactor fuel.4
Figure 1 summarizes the history of wet and dry storage of used fuel in Canada to the end of
June 2020. Initially, all fuel was wet-stored in the station used fuel storage bays. Dry storage
was initiated in the 1970s at shutdown AECL prototype reactors. Starting in the 1990s, older
fuel in the wet bays at the operating power reactors has been transferred to dry storage on an
ongoing basis. In the future, the inventory in wet storage will remain relatively constant (since
wet bay space is fixed), while the inventory in dry storage will continue to grow over time.
Figure 1: Summary of Used Fuel Wet and Dry Storage History
2.2 PROJECTED NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE
The current forecast of future nuclear fuel waste is summarized in Table 2. This forecast is
based on NWMO’s assumptions used for planning purposes only, and may differ from the
business planning assumptions used by the reactor operators.
This estimate is based on the latest published plans for refurbishment and life extension for the
current reactor fleet, uses conservative assumptions, and includes a number of uncertainties, as
described below.5
The current projection in Table 2 is based on the following:
1. Only existing CANDU stations are included in the forecast. All reactors in the existing
fleet are assumed to be refurbished, except those already shut down or where there is a
firm decision not to refurbish, and will be operated in accordance with current plans
(Ontario 2020, OPG 2020c, Bruce Power and IESO 2015, NB Power 2019):
• Reactors that have been permanently shut down do not restart (Gentilly-2,
Pickering A Units 2 and 3);
• Reactors where a definite decision has been made not to refurbish will operate to
the end of their current announced service life only (i.e., Pickering A Units 1 and
4 will run until 2024 and Pickering B Units 5–8 will run until 2025).
• Reactors that have been refurbished (Bruce A Units 1 and 2 and Point Lepreau)
and reactors that will be refurbished (Darlington, Bruce A Units 3 and 4 and
Bruce B) with new sets of pressure tubes and other major components, will
operate for about 30 effective full power years (EFPY).
2. Fuel in reactor core is removed prior to a refurbishment and not re-used. No fuel is
generated during the refurbishment period. End-of-life total includes final reactor core
fuel.
3. The forecast for each station is calculated as [(June 2020 actuals) + (number of years
from June 2020 to end-of-life) * (typical annual production of fuel bundles)], rounded to
nearest 1,000 bundles.
The forecast annual production of fuel bundles is a conservative estimate for each
station, resulting in a conservative projection of the overall total. An analysis of the last
5-year forecast vs actuals across all units indicates the forecast was high by about
+6,200 to +8,000 bundles/year. Projected over the next 30 years, and applying the 5-
year average on a station by station basis, this could indicate the current total is high by
about 100,000-160,000 bundles.
4. Units are assumed to operate until December 31 of the shutdown year.
The forecast conservatively assumes operation to end of year of shutdown. If an earlier
(mid-year) shutdown were assumed for all stations, the total would be reduced by about
46,000 bundles.
5. Units operate to current end of life dates.
Changes to the estimated end-of-life dates for refurbished reactors would result in
changes to the overall forecast. For example, a potential 3 year extension or reduction of
operation of all stations relative to current plans, assuming the highest typical annual
bundle production, would affect the total bundle count by +/- about 92,000 bundles per
year. Assuming a future 3 year extension/reduction for all units would affect the bundle
count by about +/- 280,000 bundles.
6. Total mass of heavy metals (e.g. uranium) in fuel is based on an average bundle mass
of heavy metal specific to each reactor type.6
7. Current projection does not include new reactors, such as small modular reactors
(SMRs).
Assuming 1,000 MWe of new reactors operating for 30 years, could result in an
additional 100,000-200,000 equivalent CANDU bundles, based on a simple correlation
of electric power to CANDU bundles on a thermal power basis.
In summary, the approximate 5.5 million forecast represents the best estimate based on current
plans. Its associated uncertainty could include +/- 0.28 million bundles (based on 3-year early
or delayed shutdown of all current units), -0.10 to -0.16 million bundles (based on conservatism
in projection), +0.1 to +0.2 million equivalent CANDU bundles (for a modest operation of new
reactors), and about -0.05 million bundles (for mid-year end-of-life shutdown vs assumed end-
year shutdown).
The forecast is subject to potential changes on annual basis, to account for reactor operators’
updated plans for refurbishment and life extension, as well as for adjustments in calculations to
reflect the most up-to-date numbers of bundles in storage versus previous year’s projections.7
Table 2: Summary of Projected Nuclear Fuel Waste from Existing Reactors
Typical
Total to Refurbishment Forecast(6)
Annual
Location Unit Startup June 2020 Schedule
Production
(# bundles) (Start-End)(8) Shutdown(9) (# bundles)
(bundles/a)
1 1977 Complete 2043
2 1977 Complete 2043
Bruce A 571,291 20,500(2) 1,233,000
3 1978 01/2023 – 06/2026 2061
4 1979 01/2025 – 12/2027 2062
5 1985 07/2026 – 06/2029 2062
6 1984 01/2020 – 12/2023 2058
Bruce B 756,042 23,500(2) 1,693,000
7 1986 07/2028 – 06/2031 2063
8 1987 07/2030 – 06/2033 2063
1 1992 01/2022 – 06/2025 2053
2 1990 Complete 2049
Darlington 584,868 22,000(2) 1,271,000
3 1993 09/2020 – 03/2024 2052
4 1993 07/2023 – 12/2026 2055
Douglas
- 1968 22,256 0(3) - 1984 22,256
Point
Gentilly 1 - 1972 3,213 0(3) - 1977 3,213
Gentilly 2 - 1983 129,925 0(3) - 2012 129,925
1 1971 Complete 2024
2 1971 - 2005
Pickering A 7,200(4)
3 1972 - 2005
4 1973 Complete 2024
792,429 932,000
5 1983 - 2025
6 1984 - 2025
Pickering B 14,500(2)
7 1985 - 2025
8 1986 - 2025
Point
1 1983 157,962 4,800 Complete 2040 261,000
Lepreau
Whiteshell - 1965 2,301 0(3) - 1985 2,301
Chalk
River/ - - 4,886 0(5) - - 4,886
NPD/other
5,553,000
3,025,173 92,500
Total (bundles) (See Note 1)
(t-HM)(7) 58,210 1,780 106,500
Notes:
1) This represents the best estimate based on current plans, and includes conservative assumptions and uncertainties.
2) Based on 4 reactors operating.
3) Reactor is permanently shut down and not producing any more fuel.
4) Based on 2 reactors operating.
5) Future forecasts do not include research fuels. Chalk River does not produce any CANDU power reactor used fuel
bundles. However, it may receive bundles from power reactor sites from time to time for testing. This will not affect
overall total numbers of bundles, since they will be subtracted from the reactor site.
6) Totals may not add exactly due to rounding to nearest 1,000 bundles for future forecasts.
7) “tonnes of heavy metals” (t-HM) based on an average of bundle mass specific for each reactor type.
8) Assumes units under refurbishment do not produce fuel and annual fuel production rates are scaled accordingly.
9) Assumes units operate until December 31 of the shutdown year and the core is defueled in the following year.8
3. INVENTORY FROM POTENTIAL NEW REACTORS
There are two categories of proposed new reactor projects:
• projects which have received or are currently undergoing regulatory approvals; and
• potential projects which have been discussed by various implementing organizations
(proponents), but which do not have any regulatory approvals underway.
This report focuses on the first category. However, it does not assess the probability of any of
these projects proceeding. Execution of the projects rests entirely with the proponent.
3.1 PROJECTS WHICH HAVE RECEIVED OR CURRENTLY UNDERGOING
REGULATORY APPROVALS
3.1.1 Ontario Power Generation
OPG currently holds a 10-year Nuclear Power Reactor Site Preparation Licence that allows
preparation of the Darlington nuclear site for future construction and operation of up to 4 new
reactors, with a maximum combined net electrical output of 4,800 MWe. In June 2020, OPG
has submitted an application to renew the licence for a new 10-year term, to maintain the option
for future nuclear generating capacity at the site (OPG 2020d).
To date, OPG has not selected a reactor technology for the new build at Darlington. In its
original application (OPG 2007, 2009), OPG considered four “Generation III+” reactor types,
designed to operate for 60 years:
a) CANDU ACR 1000 (Advanced CANDU reactor), a 1085 MW(e) net heavy water
moderated, light water cooled pressure tube reactor. Four ACR 1000 reactors would
result in a total production of approximately 770,400 used fuel bundles (12,480 t-HM)
over 60 years.
b) CANDU EC-6 (Enhanced CANDU 600 reactor), a 686 MW(e) net heavy water reactor,
similar to the existing CANDU 600 reactors at Gentilly-2 and Point Lepreau. Four EC-6
reactors would result in a total production of approximately 1,572,000 used fuel bundles
(30,000 t-HM) over 60 years.
c) Westinghouse AP1000, a 1037 MW(e) net pressurized light water reactor (PWR).
Four AP1000 reactors result in a total production of approximately 10,800 PWR fuel
assemblies (5,820 t-HM) over 60 years.
d) AREVA EPR (Evolutionary Power Reactor), a 1580 MW(e) net PWR. Three EPR
reactors would result in a total production of approximately 9,900 PWR fuel assemblies
(5,220 t-HM) over 60 years.
The EC-6 uses standard CANDU fuel, with options for advanced fuel types (SEU, MOX, etc.).
The other three reactor types operate with enriched uranium fuel. The ACR 1000 fuel is similar
in size and shape to existing CANDU fuel bundles. The AP1000 and EPR fuel assemblies are
considerably different from the CANDU fuels in terms of size and mass, but are very similar to
conventional pressurized light water reactor fuels used in many other countries around the
world. Further details on fuel types and potential inventories of fuel wastes are included in
Appendix C.9 The province, through its Infrastructure Ontario program, would select the preferred vendor. The selection process is currently suspended, however, the Ontario Government has stated that new nuclear remains an option for the future (Ontario 2017). 3.1.2 Global First Power Global First Power, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, and OPG propose to construct and operate a 5 MWe “Micro Modular Reactor” (MMR) plant on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s property at the Chalk River Laboratories. In December 2018, the CNSC completed Phase 1 of the pre-licensing review of the MMR (CNSC 2019a). In April 2019, Global First Power submitted to the CNSC an application to prepare site for a small modular reactor at the Chalk River Laboratories (Global First Power 2019a). In July 2019, the Federal government issued a Notice of Commencement of an environmental assessment for a small modular reactor project at the Chalk River Laboratories (CNSC 2019b). The regulatory review of this project continues; in September 2020, the CNSC has released the record of decision on the scope of the environmental assessment for Global First Power’s MMR (CNSC 2020a). At this stage there is limited information about the MMR fuel and its fuel waste characteristics. The MMR has a 30 year operation life (Global First Power 2019b) and quantities of potential fuel wastes are unknown at this time. The MMR fuel is substantially different than CANDU fuel. The fuel contains low-enriched uranium and is manufactured with Triple Coated Isotopic (TRISO) fuel particles. The NWMO continues to monitor the progress of the regulatory approval process of this project. As more information becomes available, additional details on TRISO fuel and potential fuel waste inventories from the proposed MMR will be included in future versions of this report. 3.2 POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENTS Feasibility studies and public discussions by provincial governments and potential proponents have been previously conducted for other new reactors in Ontario (Bruce Power 2008a, 2008b, 2009a), Alberta (Bruce Power 2009b), Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan 2011) and New Brunswick (MZConsulting 2008). Other proposals include the introduction of SMRs of up to a few tens or hundreds of megawatts each in remote (i.e. off-grid) communities and resource extraction sites which currently rely on small-scale fossil fuel generating plants to provide heat and/or electricity (AECL 2012, HATCH 2016). The reactors are based on a variety of non-CANDU technologies, including liquid metal cooled, molten salt cooled and light water cooled. Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) initiated the SMR Roadmap project with interested provinces, territories and power utilities to identify the opportunities for on and off-grid applications of SMRs in Canada. The Roadmap report was published in November 2018, containing more than 50 recommendations in areas such as waste management, regulatory readiness and international engagement (SMR 2018). The Government of Canada will launch Canada’s SMR Action Plan in November 2020 (NRCan 2020). The CNSC is currently undergoing a number of pre-licensing reviews for a variety of small modular reactor designs (CNSC 2020b).
10 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is looking to establish partnerships with vendors of SMR technology to develop, promote and demonstrate the technology in Canada (CNL 2017). At present, four proponents are in various stages of CNL’s review (CNL 2019). Global First Power has started stage 3 for the proposed 5 MWe MMR (high-temperature gas reactor) and has submitted an application for a licence to prepare site (see Section 3.1.2). Three other proponents have completed CNL’s pre-qualification stage and have been invited to enter CNL’s next stage of detailed review; these are U-Battery Canada Ltd. (4 MWe high temperature gas reactor), StarCore Nuclear (14 MWe high-temperature gas reactor), and Terrestrial Energy (190 MWe integral molten salt reactor). No licensing activities have been initiated for these three proposals. CNL has also formed partnerships with Moltex Energy (CNL 2020a), Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (CNL 2020b), New Brunswick Power (CNL 2020c), and Terrestrial Energy (CNL 2020d), to research SMR fuels and advance SMR technology in Canada. Some utilities have continued to express interest in supporting the development of SMR technologies; for example, Global First Power, USNC and OPG formed joint venture to own, operate Micro Modular Reactor Project at Chalk River (Global First Power 2020) and Cameco and Bruce Power have launched a centre for the next generation of nuclear technologies (Bruce Power 2020b). OPG has recently announced the plan to advance the development of an SMR in Ontario and advance engineering and design work with three developers of grid-scale SMRs: GE Hitachi (GEH), Terrestrial Energy and X-energy (OPG 2020e). At the same time, GEH has entered into MoUs with five Canadian companies to set up a supply chain for its SMR (World Nuclear News 2020). The NWMO will continue to monitor these developments and the implications of new reactors as part of its Adaptive Phased Management approach. 4. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED USED FUEL INVENTORY As of June 30, 2020 there are approximately 3.0 million used fuel bundles in wet or dry storage. Based on currently announced refurbishment and life extension plans for the existing nuclear reactor fleet in Canada, the current forecast projects a total of about 5.5 million bundles (see Section 2.2 for details). The existing and projected inventory from current reactor operations, reactor refurbishment, developed in previous sections, is summarized in Figure 2. No definitive decisions on new nuclear build have been made by the utilities in Canada, so they are not included in the current reference forecast. The 5.5 million bundle forecast is a best estimate based on current plans. Its associated uncertainty could include +/- 0.28 million bundles (based on 3-year early or delayed shutdown of all current units), -0.15 to -0.21 million bundles (based on conservatism in projection), +0.1 to +0.2 million equivalent CANDU bundles (for a modest operation of new SMRs), or about +1.6 million bundle-equivalents for 3-4 new large reactors at the Darlington site.
11
Notes:
1) The existing fuel (as of end of June 2020) is shown in the green shaded area
2) The forecast (orange shaded area) shows the additional fuel bundles that would be generated based on
the announced refurbishment and life extension projects for the existing Canadian reactor fleet
Figure 2: Summary of Projected Used Fuel Inventory
Note that in addition to the CANDU fuel bundles described above, there are small quantities of
other nuclear fuel waste, such as the AECL research fuels, pellets and elements mentioned in
the footnotes to Table 1, as well as used fuels from other Canadian research reactors (as listed
in the Appendix A, Table A3), which are included within the NWMO’s mandate for implementing
the APM program, if requested by the waste owner. Some of these non-CANDU reactor fuels
have been or will be returned to the country of origin, e.g. USA or France, under the terms of the
original supply agreements or international agreements governing their usage.
There are also other heat-generating radioactive wastes in Canada (such as cobalt-60 sources
produced in Canadian CANDU reactors and used in industrial and therapeutic radiation
devices), again in relatively small quantities (on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 fuel bundle
equivalents, i.e. less than 0.1% of the projected used fuel inventory). These non-fuel, heat
generating wastes are not within the NWMO’s legislated mandate for nuclear fuel waste.12
REFERENCES
AECL. 2012. AECL Nuclear Review, Volume 1, Number 2, December 2012. Available at
http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/454640/publication.html.
Bruce Power. 2008a. Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment –
Environmental Impact Statement. Bruce Power. Available at www.brucepower.com.
Bruce Power. 2008b. Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment –
Bounding Plant Envelope Technical Support Document. Bruce Power. Available at
www.brucepower.com.
Bruce Power. 2009a. “Bruce Power to Focus on Additional Refurbishments at Bruce A and B;
Bruce C and Nanticoke new-build applications withdrawn”, Bruce Power news release,
July 23, 2009. Available at www.brucepower.com.
Bruce Power. 2009b. Withdrawal of Application for Approval to Prepare a Site for the Future
Construction of a Nuclear Power Generating Facility Municipal District of Northern
Lights, Alberta. Bruce Power Alberta submission to the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission, January 2009. Available at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca.
Bruce Power. 2020a. “Bruce Power Launches Next Phase of Life-extension Program with Start
of Major Component Replacement Unit 6 Project”, Bruce Power news release, Jan 20,
2020. Available at www.brucepower.com
Bruce Power. 2020b. “Cameco and Bruce Power support launch of Centre for Next Generation
Nuclear Technologies and announce contracts that support innovation and isotope
production”, Bruce Power news release, August 20, 2020. Available at
www.brucepower.com
Bruce Power and Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). 2015. Amended and
Restated Bruce Power Refurbishment Implementation Agreement. Available at
www.brucepower.com.
Canada. 2002. Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, S.C. 2002, c. 23. Available at laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-27.7/index.html.
CNL. 2017. Small Modular Reactor Technology. Available at www.cnl.ca/en/home/facilities-
and-expertise/smr/default.aspx.
CNL. 2019. “Technology developers advance in CNL’s process to site a small modular reactor”,
CNL news release, July 29, 2019. Available at https://www.cnl.ca/en/home/facilities-
and-expertise/smr/update-on-cnl-s-smr-invitation-process.aspx
CNL. 2020a. “CNL & Moltex Energy partner on SMR fuel research”, CNL news release, April 23,
2020. Available at www.cnl.ca
CNL. 2020b. “CNL & USNC partner on SMR fuel research”, CNL news release, February 26,
2020. Available at www.cnl.ca13
CNL. 2020c. “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and NB Power sign collaboration agreement to
advance small modular reactors”, CNL news release, February 27, 2020. Available at
www.cnl.ca
CNL. 2020d. “CNL and Terrestrial Energy partner on SMR fuel research”, CNL news release,
September 15, 2020. Available at www.cnl.ca
CNSC. 2019a. Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review. Available at
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-
review/executive-summary-ultra-safe-nuclear-corporation.cfm
CNSC. 2019b. Notice of Commencement of an Environmental Assessment. Available at
https://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/130928?culture=en-CA
CNSC. 2020a. Record of Decision in the Matter of Global First Power. Decision on the scope of
an environmental assessment for the proposed Micro Modular Reactor Project at the
Chalk River Laboratories, July 16, 2020. Available at
http://www.suretenucleaire.gc.ca/eng/the-commission/pdf/Decision-
GlobalFirstPowerEAScoping-CMD20-H102-e-Final.pdf
CNSC. 2020b. Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review. Available at
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-
review/index.cfm
Global First Power. 2019a. Licence to Prepare Site Initial Application: MMR Nuclear Plant at
Chalk River. Global First Energy Report CRP-LIC-01-002. Available at
www.globalfirstpower.com.
Global First Power. 2019b. Project Description for the Micro Modular Reactor™ Project at Chalk
River. Global First Energy Report CRP-LIC-01-001. Available at
www.globalfirstpower.com.
Global First Power. 2020. “GFP, USNC AND OPG form joint venture to own, operate Micro
Modular Reactor Project at Chalk River”, GFP news release, June 9, 2020. Available at
www.globalfirstpower.com .
Gobien M., and M. Ion. 2019. Nuclear Fuel Waste Projections in Canada – 2019 Update.
Nuclear Waste Management Organization report NWMO-TR-2019-14. Available at
www.nwmo.ca.
HATCH. 2016. Ontario Ministry of Energy SMR Deployment Feasibility Study, HATCH report
H350381-00000-162-066-0001, prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Energy. Available
at ontarioenergyreport.ca/pdfs/MOE%20-%20Feasibility%20Study_SMRs%20-
%20June%202016.pdf.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2004. Status of advanced light water reactor
designs. IAEA report IAEA-TECDOC-1391. Available at www.iaea.org.
JRP. 2011. Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report, Darlington New Nuclear
Power Plant Project, August 2011. Available at www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca.14
MZConsulting. 2008. Viability Study for New Nuclear Facilities in New Brunswick. Report
prepared for the Government of New Brunswick by MZConsulting. Available at leg-
horizon.gnb.ca/e-repository/monographs/30000000045457/30000000045457.pdf.
NB Power. 2019. NB Power’s 10-Year Plan. Fiscal Years 2021 to 2030. Available at
www.nbpower.com.
NWMO. 2019. Watching Brief on Advanced Fuel Cycles - 2019 Update. Available at
www.nwmo.ca.
Ontario. 2017. Delivering Fairness and Choice: Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan. Ontario
Ministry of Energy. Available at: https://files.ontario.ca/books/ltep2017_0.pdf.
Ontario. 2020. “Ontario Supports Plan to Safely Extend the Life of the Pickering Nuclear
Generating Station” Government of Ontario News Release, August 13, 2020. Available
at www.news.ontario.ca
OPG. 2007. Project Description for the Site Preparation, Construction and Operation of the
Darlington B Nuclear Generating Station Environmental Assessment. Ontario Power
Generation report submitted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Available at
www.opg.com.
OPG. 2009. “OPG Submits Documents for the Federal Approvals Process in Support of New
Nuclear at the Darlington Site”, OPG news release, September 30, 2009. Available at
www.opg.com.
OPG. 2020a. “Darlington’s refurbished Unit 2 reactor returns to service”, OPG news release,
June 4, 2020. Available at www.opg.com.
OPG. 2020b. “Refurbishment of Darlington Nuclear’s Unit 3 now underway”, OPG news release,
September 3, 2020. Available at www.opg.com.
OPG. 2020c. “Darlington Refurbishment performance update Q2 2020”, OPG news release,
August 13, 2020. Available at www.opg.com.
OPG. 2020d. “Preparing for tomorrow’s energy needs: Darlington New Nuclear”, June 29, 2020.
Available at www.opg.com.
OPG. 2020e. “OPG paving the way for Small Modular Reactor deployment”, Oct 6, 2020.
Available at www.opg.com.
NRCan. 2020. “Turning the Roadmap into Action: Canada’s SMR Action Plan”. Available at
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/nuclear-
energy-uranium/canadas-small-modular-reactor-action-plan/21183.
SMR (Canadian Small Modular Reactor Roadmap Steering Committee). 2018. A Call to Action:
A Canadian Roadmap for Small modular Reactors. Available at
https://smrroadmap.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SMRroadmap_EN_nov6_Web-
1.pdf15
Saskatchewan. 2011. “Saskatchewan and Hitachi sign nuclear R&D agreements”, Government
of Saskatchewan news release, August 25, 2011. Available at saskatchewan.ca/news.
World Nuclear News. 2020. “OPG Advances towards SMR Deployment”. Available at
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/OPG-advances-towards-SMR-deployment.16 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF EXISTING CANADIAN REACTORS & FUEL STORAGE Appendix A presents a summary of commercial, demonstration and research reactors in Canada. Table A1 presents a summary of commercial power reactors in Canada and their status. Table A2 presents a summary of prototype and demonstration reactors in Canada and their status. Table A3 presents a summary of research reactors in Canada and their status. Commercial, prototype and some research reactors have storage facilities for used nuclear fuel. Table A4 presents a summary of dry storage facilities for used nuclear fuel and Figure A1 shows the location of the major storage locations in Canada.
17
Table A1: Nuclear Power Reactors
Rating Year In-
Location Fuel Type* Current Status (2020)
(MW(e) net) service
Bruce Nuclear Power Development, Ontario
Bruce A – 1 750 1977 Refurbished and operating
Bruce A – 2 750 1977 37 element Refurbished and operating
Bruce A – 3 750 1978 bundle Operating
Bruce A – 4 750 1979 Operating
Bruce B – 5 795 1985 Operating
37 element
Bruce B – 6 822 1984 bundle; Undergoing refurbishment
37 element
Bruce B – 7 822 1986 “long” bundle Operating
Bruce B – 8 795 1987 Operating
Darlington, Ontario
Darlington 1 881 1992 Operating
37 element
Darlington 2 881 1990 bundle; Refurbished and operating
Darlington 3 881 1993 37 element Undergoing refurbishment
“long” bundle
Darlington 4 881 1993 Operating
Gentilly, Quebec
37 element
Gentilly 2 635 1983 Permanently shut down in 2012
bundle
Pickering, Ontario
Pickering A – 1 515 1971 Refurbished and operating
Non-operational since 1997;
Pickering A – 2 515 1971
Permanently shut down in 2005
Non-operational since 1997;
Pickering A – 3 515 1972
Permanently shut down in 2005
28 element
Pickering A – 4 515 1973 bundle Refurbished and operating
Pickering B – 5 516 1983 Operating
Pickering B – 6 516 1984 Operating
Pickering B – 7 516 1985 Operating
Pickering B – 8 516 1986 Operating
Point Lepreau, New Brunswick
37 element
Point Lepreau 635 1983 Refurbished and operating
bundle
*Note: refer to Appendix B for description of fuel types, and their current storage status.18
Table A2: Prototype and Demonstration Power Reactors
Rating Year In-
Location Fuel Type Current Status (2020)
(MW(e) net) service
Bruce Nuclear Power Development, Ontario
Douglas Point
19 element Permanently shut down in 1984;
(CANDU PHWR 206 1968
bundle All fuel is in dry storage on site
prototype)
Gentilly, Quebec
Gentilly 1
(CANDU-BLW 18 element
Permanently shut down in 1977;
boiling water 250 1972 CANDU-BLW
All fuel is in dry storage on site
reactor bundle
prototype)
Rolphton, Ontario
19 element
bundle;
NPD (CANDU various Permanently shut down in 1987;
PHWR 22 1962 prototype fuel All fuel is in dry storage at Chalk
prototype) designs River
(e.g. 7 element
bundle)19
Table A3: Research Reactors
Rating Year In-
Location Fuel Type Comments
(MW(th)) service
Chalk River, Ontario
Permanently shut down on March
various driver fuel and 31, 2018. As of Jun 2020, half NRU
NRU 135 1957 target designs (U-metal, U- fuel has been transferred to dry
Al, UO2, U3Si-Al) storage, with the remainder in wet
storage pending transfer.
ZED-2 0.00025 1960 various uranium fuels Operating
various driver fuel and
NRX 42 1947 target designs (U-metal, U- Permanently shut down in 1992
Al, UO2)
MAPLE 1 10 - U3Si-Al driver fuel; U-metal
Never fully commissioned
MAPLE 2 10 - targets
Whiteshell, Manitoba
various research and
WR-1 (organic prototype fuel bundle
Permanently shut down in 1985;
cooled reactor 60 1965 designs (similar size and
All fuel is in dry storage on site.
prototype) shape to standard CANDU
bundles; UO2, UC)
Hamilton, Ontario
McMaster
5 1959 U3Si-Al fuel pins MTR Pool type reactor; Operating.
University
Kingston, Ontario
Royal Military
0.02 1985 UO2 SLOWPOKE fuel pins SLOWPOKE-2 reactor; Operating.
College
Montreal, Quebec
Ecole
0.02 1976 UO2 SLOWPOKE fuel pins SLOWPOKE-2 reactor; Operating.
polytechnique
Edmonton, Alberta
SLOWPOKE-2 reactor.
University of
0.02 1977 U-Al SLOWPOKE fuel pins Permanently shut down in 2017.
Alberta
Fuel was repatriated to US.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan SLOWPOKE-2 reactor.
Research 0.02 1981 U-Al SLOWPOKE fuel pins Permanently shut down in 2019.
Council Fuel was repatriated to US.
Note: the SLOWPOKE reactors can operate on one fuel charge for 20 to 40 years. Other former research
reactors include the 2 MW(th) SLOWPOKE Demonstration Reactor at Whiteshell, the low power PTR and
ZEEP reactors at Chalk River, and shut down / decommissioned SLOWPOKE reactors at University of
Toronto, Dalhousie University and Nordion Kanata. Used fuel from these shut down research reactors is
stored at the Chalk River site, Whiteshell site or has been returned to the country of origin (e.g. US).20
Table A4: Summary of Dry Storage Facilities for Used Nuclear Fuel
Year In-
Facility Owner Technology Fuel Type
service
AECL Concrete CANDU & CANDU-like
Chalk River AECL 1992
Canister/Silo (mainly 19 element)
Darlington Waste CANDU
OPG Dry Storage
Management Facility OPG 2008
Container (DSC) (37 element)
(DWMF)
Douglas Point Waste AECL Concrete CANDU
AECL 1987
Management Facility Canister/Silo (19 element)
AECL Concrete CANDU-BLW
Gentilly 1 AECL 1984
Canister/Silo (18 element)
AECL CANDU
Gentilly 2 HQ CANSTOR/MACSTOR 1995
modular concrete vault (37 element)
Pickering Waste CANDU
OPG Dry Storage
Management Facility OPG 1996
Container (DSC) (28 element)
(PWMF)
AECL Concrete CANDU
Point Lepreau NBPN 1990
Canister/Silo (37 element)
Western (Bruce) CANDU
OPG Dry Storage
Waste Management OPG 2003
Container (DSC) (37 element)
Facility (WWMF)
AECL Concrete CANDU & CANDU-like
Whiteshell AECL 1977
Canister/Silo (various sizes)21 Figure A1: Current Nuclear Fuel Waste Major Storage Location in Canada
22
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF FUEL TYPES
Table B1 summarizes the inventory of the various bundles types in Canada as of June 2020.
Section B.1 details the physical characteristics and usage of the bundles in operating reactors.
Section B.2 details the physical characteristics and usage of the bundles in demonstration and
prototype reactors. Note that the physical characteristics of the bundles described in this
appendix are intended to be nominal and other sources may quote different numbers.
Table B1: Summary of Inventory by Bundle Type (June 2020)
Wet Storage Dry Storage Total
CANDU Bundle Type Where Used
(# bundles) (# bundles) (# bundles)
Gentilly 1,
18 Element - 4,417 4,417
Whiteshell
7 Element / 19 NPD, Douglas
- 26,296 26,296
Element Point
28 Element Pickering 396,935 395,494 792,429
Bruce,
Darlington,
37R 574,468 1,050,430 1,624,898
Gentilly 2,
Pt Lepreau
Bruce,
37R Long 133,802 102,501 236,303
Darlington
Bruce,
37M 254,124 - 254,124
Darlington
Bruce,
37M Long 84,739 - 84,739
Darlington
43 Element LVRF Bruce 24 - 24
Other AECL (various) - 1,943 1,943
Total 1,444,092 1,581,081 3,025,17323
B.1 FUELS FROM OPERATING REACTORS
28 element CANDU bundle
Physical dimensions:
102.5 mm OD x 497.1 mm OL
Mass:
20.1 kg U (22.8 kg as UO2)
2.0 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding, spacers)
24.8 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of natural UO2
Typical burnup:
8,300 MW day / tonne U
(200 MWh/kg U)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 28 elements (fuel pins), arranged in 3 concentric rings with 4 elements in
the inner most ring, 8 elements in the second ring and 16 elements in the outer ring.
- Construction includes end plates, spacers and bearing pads to improve flow characteristics and
maintain structural integrity.
Comments:
- Used in Pickering A and B reactors24
37 element CANDU standard length bundle
Physical dimensions:
102.5 mm OD x 495 mm OL
Mass:
19.2 kg U (21.7 kg as UO2)
2.2 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding, spacers)
24.0 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of natural UO2
Typical burnup:
8,300 MW day / tonne U
(200 MWh/kg U)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 37 elements (fuel pins), arranged in 4 concentric rings with 1 element in the
inner most central ring, 6 elements in the second ring, 12 elements in the third ring and 18 elements
in the outer ring.
- Construction includes end plates, spacers and bearing pads to improve flow characteristics and
maintain structural integrity.
Comments:
- Used in Bruce A and B, Darlington, Gentilly-2, Point Lepreau and EC-6 reactors (Gentilly-2 and
Point Lepreau have minor construction differences on the end plates and spacers compared to the
Bruce and Darlington designs).
- Two variants, designated 37R (regular) and 37M (modified), have slightly different center pin
configurations and uranium masses (19.2 kg U for 37R vs 19.1 kg U for 37M). 37M is presently in
use in Bruce and Darlington stations replacing prior 37R.25
37 element CANDU long bundle
Physical dimensions:
102.5 mm OD x 508 mm OL
Mass:
19.7 kg U (22.3 kg as UO2)
2.24 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding, spacers)
24.6 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of natural UO2
Typical burnup:
8,300 MW day / tonne U
(200 MWh/kg U)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 37 elements (fuel pins), arranged in 4 concentric rings with 1 element in the
inner most central ring, 6 elements in the second ring, 12 elements in the third ring and 18 elements
in the outer ring.
- Construction includes end plates, spacers and bearing pads to improve flow characteristics and
maintain structural integrity.
Comments:
- Similar to 37 element “standard” bundle, but is 13 mm longer.
- Used in Bruce B, and Darlington reactors.
- Two variants, designated 37R-long and 37M-long, have slightly different center pin configurations
and uranium masses (19.7 kg U for 37R-long vs 19.6 kg U for 37M-long). 37M-long is presently in
use in Bruce stations, replacing prior 37R-long.26
43 element CANFLEX LVRF bundle
Physical dimensions:
102.5 mm OD x 495.3 mm OL
Mass:
18.5 kg U (21.0 kg as UO2)
2.1 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding, spacers)
23.1 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of UO2
slightly enriched to 1.0% U-235
Typical burnup:
8,300 MW day / tonne U
(200 MWh/kg U)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 43 elements (fuel pins), arranged in 4 concentric rings with 1 element in the
inner most central ring, 7 elements in the second ring, 14 elements in the third ring and 21 elements
in the outer ring.
- The inner central element uses Dysprosium (an element that absorbs neutrons and reduces the
bundle power maintaining a flat neutronic field profile across the bundle during operation).
- Diameter and composition of fuel pins varies by ring.
- Construction includes end plates, spacers and bearing pads to improve flow characteristics and
maintain structural integrity.
Comments:
- Has been used in Bruce B reactors in limited quantities, option for use in EC-6 reactors27
B.2 FUELS FROM DEMONSTRATION AND PROTOTYPE REACTORS
7 element CANDU bundle
Physical dimensions:
82.0 mm OD x 495.3 mm OL
Mass:
13.4 – 13.5 kg U (15.2 – 15.3 kg as UO2)
1.4 – 1.5 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding)
16.7 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of natural UO2
Some low-enriched 7 element bundles
exists at 1.4% wt 235U and 2.5% wt 235U
enrichment
Typical burnup:
6474 MW day / tonne U
(156 MWh/kg U)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-2
Nickel-free Zircaloy-2
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 7 elements (fuel pins), arranged as 1 element surrounded by a ring of 6
elements.
- construction included wire-wrap and split-spacer fuel elements; riveted or welded end plates (only
one bundle model had riveted end plates, all others had welded end plates) and thin, medium and
thick walled cladding
Comments:
- Used in NPD28
18 element CANDU bundle
Physical dimensions:
102.4 mm OD x 500 mm OL
Mass:
20.7 kg U (23.5 kg as UO2)
3.2 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding, spacers)
26.7 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of natural UO2
Typical burnup:
6972 MW day / tonne U
(168 MWh/kg U)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 18 elements (fuel pins), arranged in 2 concentric rings with 6 elements in
the inner most ring and 12 elements in the second ring.
- Construction includes end plates, spacers and bearing pads to improve flow characteristics and
maintain structural integrity.
Comments:
- Used in Gentilly 129
19 element CANDU bundle
Physical dimensions:
82.0 mm OD x 495.3 mm OL
Mass:
12.1 – 13.4 kg U (13.7 – 15.2 kg as UO2)
1.4 – 2.2 kg Zircaloy (e.g., cladding)
15.8 – 16.7 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of natural UO2
Some low-enriched 19 element bundles
exists at up to 1.4% wt 235U enrichment
Typical burnup:
6474 MW day / tonne U at NPD
7885 MW day / tonne U at Douglas Point
(156 MWh/kg U at NPD)
(190 MWh/kg U at Douglas Point)
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 19 elements (fuel pins), 1 element is surrounded by 2 concentric rings of
fuel pins, 6 elements in the first ring and 12 elements in the outer ring.
- originally produced as a wire-wrapped bundle this design was eventually replaced with split-spacer
variation
Comments:
- Used in NPD and Douglas Point30 APPENDIX C: POTENTIAL NEW BUILD FUEL CHARACTERISTICS AND QUANTITIES Table C1 presents a summary of the major characteristics and quantities of nuclear fuels that are used in the new reactors that have been proposed in various projects. The data have been extracted from references (Bruce Power 2008a, 2008b; IAEA 2004; JRP 2011). Table C2 summarizes the total quantity of used fuel that might be produced for the proposed new-build reactors at Darlington. As mentioned in Section 3.1.1, until decisions on reactor types, number of units and operating conditions are taken by the proponents, these forecasts remain highly speculative. The total additional quantity of used fuel from the Darlington New Nuclear Project could be up to 1.6 million CANDU fuel bundles (30,000 t-HM), or 10,800 PWR fuel assemblies, depending on the selected reactor type. Section C.1 details the physical characteristics and usage of the bundles in potential new-build reactors. Note that other sources may quote different numbers for fuel properties and used fuel production rates. This is generally due to the preliminary nature of some of the designs combined with the various ways some of the reactors can be operated (e.g. enrichment level and burnup, assumed capacity factors, length of operating period between re-fuelling outages for light water reactors, conservative assumptions used for environmental assessment purposes). The quantities and characteristics used for forecasting in this report will be updated as reactor types are selected and their designs are further defined.
31
Table C1: Summary of Fuel Types for Proposed New Reactors
Parameter ACR 1000 EC-6 AP1000 EPR
Horizontal pressure
Horizontal pressure
tube, heavy water Pressurized light water Pressurized light water
Reactor Type tube, heavy water
moderated, light water reactor (PWR) reactor (PWR)
moderated and cooled
cooled
Net / Gross Power [MW(e)] 1085 / 1165 686 / 745 1037 / 1117 1580 / 1770
Design Life 60 years 60 years 60 years 60 years
CANFLEX ACR fuel 37 element CANDU Conventional 17x17 Conventional 17x17
Fuel type
bundle bundle PWR fuel design PWR fuel design
Refueling shutdown Refueling shutdown
every 12 to 24 months every 12 to 24 months
Fueling method On power On power
and replace portion of and replace portion of
the core the core
Natural U, with options 2.4-4.5% avg initial
Up to 2.5% for core Up to 5% for
Fuel enrichment for SEU (1.2%) and
equilibrium core equilibrium core
MOX 4.8% avg for reloads
102.5 mm OD x 495.3 102.5 mm OD x 495.3 214 mm square x 4795 214 mm square x 4805
Fuel dimensions
mm OL mm OL mm OL mm OL
Fuel assembly U mass [kg initial U] 16.2 19.2 538.3 527.5
Fuel assembly total mass [kg] 21.5 24.0 789 780
# of fuel assemblies per core 6,240 4,560 157 241
Fuel load per core [kg initial U] 101,088 87,552 84,513 127,128
Annual used fuel production [t-HM/yr per
52 126 24 29
reactor]
Annual used fuel production
3,210 6,550 45 55
[number of fuel assemblies/yr per reactor]
Lifetime used fuel production [t-HM per
3,120 7,500 1,455 1,740
reactor]
Lifetime used fuel production
192,600 393,000 2,700 3,300
[number of fuel assemblies per reactor]
Note: Data extracted from references (Bruce Power 2008a; IAEA 2004; JRP 2011). Annual and lifetime data have been rounded.32
Table C2: Summary of Potential Nuclear Fuel Waste from New Reactors at Darlington
Darlington New
Reactor
Nuclear
Assumed operation 60 years
EC-6
# of reactor units 4
Quantity of fuel (# bundles) 1,572,000
(t-HM) 30,000
AP 1000
# of reactor units 4
Quantity of fuel (# assemblies) 10,800
(t-HM) 5,82033
C.1 FUELS FROM POTENTIAL NEW-BUILD REACTORS
43 element CANFLEX ACR bundle
Physical dimensions:
102.5 mm OD x 495.3 mm OL
Mass:
16.2 kg U (18.4 kg as UO2)
3.1 kg Zircaloy and other materials in
cladding, spacers, etc.
21.5 kg total bundle weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of UO2
enriched to 2.5% U-235
Typical burnup:
20,000 MW day/ tonne U
Cladding material:
Zircaloy-4
Construction:
- Bundle is composed of 43 elements (fuel pins), arranged in 4 concentric rings with 1 element in the
inner most central ring, 7 elements in the second ring, 14 elements in the third ring and 21 elements in
the outer ring.
- Diameter and composition of fuel pins varies by ring.
- Construction includes end plates, spacers and bearing pads to improve flow characteristics and
maintain structural integrity.
Comments:
- Used in ACR-1000 reactors34
AP1000 PWR fuel assembly
Physical dimensions:
214 mm square x 4795 mm OL
Mass:
538.3 kg U (613 kg as UO2)
~176 kg ZIRLO and other materials in
cladding, spacers, etc.
789 kg total weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of UO2
enriched up to 5% U-235
Typical burnup:
60,000 MWday/tonne U
Cladding material:
ZIRLO
Construction:
- Each fuel assembly consists of 264 fuel rods, 24 guide thimbles, and 1 instrumentation tube
arranged within a 17 x 17 matrix supporting structure. The instrumentation thimble is located in the
center position and provides a channel for insertion of an in-core neutron detector, if the fuel
assembly is located in an instrumented core position. The guide thimbles provide channels for
insertion of either a rod cluster control assembly, a gray rod cluster assembly, a neutron source
assembly, a burnable absorber assembly, or a thimble plug, depending on the position of the
particular fuel assembly in the core.
Comments:
- Used in Westinghouse AP1000 reactors35
EPR PWR fuel assembly
Physical dimensions:
214 mm square x 4805 mm OL
Mass:
527.5 kg U (598.0 kg as UO2)
~182 kg other materials in cladding,
spacers, etc.
780 kg total weight
Fissionable material:
Sintered pellets of UO2
enriched up to 5% U-235
Typical burnup:
62,000 MWday/tonne U
Cladding material:
M5
Construction:
- Each fuel assembly consists of 265 fuel rods and 24 guide thimbles which can either be used for
control rods or for core instrumentation arranged within a 17 x 17 matrix supporting structure. The
guide thimbles provide channels for insertion of either a rod cluster control assembly, a gray rod
cluster assembly, a neutron source assembly, a burnable absorber assembly, a thimble plug or core
instrumentation, depending on the position of the particular fuel assembly in the core.
Comments:
- Used in Areva EPR reactorsYou can also read
